jvz
One Of Your Own
Posts: 163 
|
Post by jvz on Feb 16, 2017 11:16:42 GMT
The good old British Board of Films Classification (formerly Censors) protecting us, rightly or wrongly since 1912. I have felt for a long time after sitting through many action films in the line of duty (lots of explosions, no plot) the 12A certificate is a cop out effectively absolving the BBFC of any responsibility, however thinking about it a bit more there have always been films that have not had the certificate one might have expected. Gregory's Girl must have been an 'A' when first released as I saw it on a double bill with Chariots of Fire aged nine with the family on holiday. My video was certificate 15 and DVD 12. When Kes was first released I was surprised it had a 'U' certificate, raised to PG for the DVD. Do we feel the BBFC is necessary or an outdated institution? Any films we think have been given the wrong certificate? I do find the Parents' Guide section on IMDB most entertaining with its swear counts, the apparent effort to be offended and stating the obvious. "Gunfight at the OK Corral" - "There is a lot of shooting." Who'd have thought.  |
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Feb 16, 2017 12:18:17 GMT
Arch Stanton's favourite organisation.   |
|
|
|
Post by bensonrad on Feb 16, 2017 13:09:40 GMT
I find certification a bit odd, over recent years films that were 15 seem to be on Channel 5 in the afternoon as family films, I can only imagine edited to bits, but then those kids might stumble across the DVD somewhere and say to their mates oh I saw that on Sunday lets watch it and find a fair bit of extra content.
Goonies is a film that seems to have gone up in certificate from PG to 12, which I find odd.
I guess ultimately they are there to protect young/innocent ears, but the internet has put paid to that, you can watch pretty much anything youtube these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Feb 16, 2017 14:40:24 GMT
Oh no, here we go... I think as a guide the BBFC do a really difficult and important job. Often films need stronger certificates dependent on their content. Sometimes this can be a cause and effect of something that has happened recently, leading to a societal zeitgeist, which can lead to temporarily stricter or more lax codes of conduct. I find the idea of censors doing anything more than acting as a guideline though abhorrent. Weird to say coming from a mod I know but I don't agree with censorship at all. By and large it's a mess. Notice how the censorship of material is only ever aimed at 'others' or 'them out there', because of what they might do if they see/hear/read/think out of line... Hmmm... that all sounds like an attempt at keeping other adults ignorant so that they are more easily controlled to me. Usually it's based on race, social standing, political orientation, religious orientation, sexual orientation, age and wealth. Nah, censorship is ballcocks if you ask me. I'm not into it. The BBFC are fine if they want to guide me, but if they want to control what I see, hear, read or think then they can jog on! |
|
|
|
Post by ltd on Feb 17, 2017 22:11:47 GMT
Gregory's Girl must have been an 'A' when first released as I saw it on a double bill with Chariots of Fire aged nine with the family on holiday. I saw the same double bill when it came to our local flea pit. Had no idea what Gregory's Girl was about and it was a pleasant surprise to see it was about kids not unlike me and filmed in a town similar to the one where I lived. Been one of my favourite films ever since. Er...anyway back on topic. BBFC seems to have had a rather chequered history, which in part seems to depend on who was in charge of it at the time. The late James Ferman had some rather eccentric, not to mention reactionary views. Recently it seems the honchos are happy to allow hardcore you know what to pass with nary a cut. I remember horror Samhain 'zine doing an interview with a BBFC staffer back in the eighties. He seemed lie a decent bloke and a genuine film fan. Seemed to spend a lot of time watching cr*p movies, struck me as a pretty thankless job. |
|
|
|
Post by gustav on Feb 18, 2017 11:39:56 GMT
There was a good joke on 'Not the Nine o'clock News' I remember from long ago. They showed a series of film censors' certificates all of them 'U's and all signed by an individual censor. Then they cut to an 'X' film certificate, something like 'Lesbian Vampire Lust', and this certificate was crowded out with about a dozen censors' signatures. It was very funny at the time!
|
|
|
|
Post by daz on Feb 18, 2017 12:12:52 GMT
It is an organisation which has evolved with time and I think they still serve a purpose, which is pretty hard to uphold in this day and age.
For the record I don't believe in censorship in any form.
|
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Feb 18, 2017 12:54:19 GMT
The only line I draw is at animal cruelty. I think the BBFC does have a good purpose in keeping that from our screens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Feb 19, 2017 5:12:29 GMT
The only line I draw is at animal cruelty. I think the BBFC does have a good purpose in keeping that from our screens. Ah yes, the old animal cruelty card, that always rears it's ugly head in discussions such as this, and it's very easy to just state what you have MIAS, without looking at and discussing the subject on a deeper level. You're right of course, animal cruelty is awful and I would like to think that modern film makers would not stoop to levels of animal cruelty in order to achieve their desired effect or film. And I would also like to state that those commiting acts of animal cruelty for the sake of film should these days be prosecuted - if necessary, in their relevant jurisdiction, accordingly. As times have changed and with it so have film making techniques. However in the same breath when considering historical acts of animal cruelty in film the subject starts to become a tricky one - at least for me... As I don't see the point of the BBFC cutting or banning cinematic classics like Ben Hur (1925), Stagecoach (1939), Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973), Ulzana's Raid (1972) or Apocalypse Now (1979) - not to mention the hundreds of other films featuring horse falls or other scenes of animal injury/destruction etc.. Just because we now(?) deem these film making measures as unacceptable. Personally, I think there is no need for 'animal cruelty' in film these days, however if I choose to watch a film that has historic acts of animal cruelty in it does that mean I condone it or does it make me bad? If not, what do we deem as historic acts? 1930, 1950, 1990, 2016? Should we ban or cut to ribbons a film like The Charge Of The Light Brigade (1936) with Errol Flynn? Do cinematic classics like Cockfighter (1974) deserve to be banned out right? Where do we draw the line? At just vertebrates? Or do invertebrates count? If Tarkovsky kills a horse in a film that is due to be terminated that day anyway, is this acceptable? What about documentaries? Do we not live in a society that condones wanton acts of animal destruction and cruelty on a daily basis? The list of questions and moral dilemmas are endless. And I don't think it's solved by simply saying 'I don't like animal cruelty... all films that depict any form of animal cruelty are bad and should be censored or banned.' I don't think that's a viable option and as an opinion it's foolish, reactionary and ignorant. |
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Feb 19, 2017 10:07:39 GMT
When I refer to animal cruelty I am really talking about when animals have deliberately been injured or killed for "entertainment". There is an Italian film in which a monkey gets eaten by a snake I think. That deserves to be banned.
The horse falls were filmed when people didn't know any better. I have no problem with that. It is like the horse jump that has been cut from 'Never Say Never Again'. It wasn't cut when I went to see it at the cinema in 1983 but has been censored ever since. That is lunacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Feb 19, 2017 12:04:06 GMT
When I refer to animal cruelty I am really talking about when animals have deliberately been injured or killed for "entertainment". There is an Italian film in which a monkey gets eaten by a snake I think. That deserves to be banned. I assume you're referring to Eaten Alive (1980). Which actually takes it's snake/monkey footage from Mountain Of The Cannibal God (1978 - The one with Ursula Andress and Stacy Keach). Both are really good, exciting, gory, adventure films, that sadly also contain some 'animal footage'. You are 100% right, these scenes were put into the films at the time as a form of entertainment - no question, sensational shocking entertainment, attempting to compete with mondo movies and the growing market for 'real' pseudo-documentary violence in cinema at the time. Did they know any better than the guys rigging the horse falls at the same time? I'm not so sure.. The directors that have since done commentaries or approached on the subject in retrospective interviews have often denied ever filming the scenes and had no idea they had been edited in, or they are completely ashamed and have said what they did to make the movie a bigger success or fulfill their contract was not right. In hind sight they apologise. Don't forget that a lot of these movies and shock mondo scenes weren't ever created or designed to appeal to western audiences anyway, they were designed for the Japanese film market. A market in which Cannibal Holocaust was the highest grossing movie 2nd only to ET. Now, if someone presents me with the option of banning or cutting that movie because it upsets some adults and not others then I say no. If you don't want to watch it fine but I have all of those films in my collection uncut and I don't believe there is anything wrong with that. I don't believe that they should banned. That's ridiculous, why would you ban them? Because you find it distasteful? Because lot's of stuff in TV and film I find distasteful, does it mean those should be banned too? No, where the BBFC should come into this isn't to cut or ban the film but rather to give guidance so that people like yourself, who find that completely offensive, can make an informed decision avoid watching them. Fortunately these days cinema has moved forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Feb 19, 2017 12:25:29 GMT
The horse falls were filmed when people didn't know any better. I have no problem with that. It is like the horse jump that has been cut from 'Never Say Never Again'. It wasn't cut when I went to see it at the cinema in 1983 but has been censored ever since. That is lunacy. Didn't know any better or didn't care because they were making lots of big Hollywood dollars out of (mostly) western and war films at the time. I think that after the very first horse fall was ever filmed which resulted in a horse's death, I think they knew exactly what they were doing and what the hazards were to the horses. The problem was they didn't care, because in order to make those films more spectacular or sensational and realistic (see also: Italian cannibal/mondo cinema), they were prepared for a certain damage limitation where animals were concerned... To say that there is a massive difference between the two is hypocrisy. I suspect that the number of horses/animals killed in Hollywood productions far outweighs anything Italian exploitation cinema did. |
|
|
|
Post by Portland Road on Feb 20, 2017 7:38:56 GMT
I think Hollywood was traditionally ruthless. I suppose horses could be disposable.
Also, if an actor/actress/stunt person was injured in the course of filming, the studio perhaps paid for their medical care. But if said person sued, they probably wouldn't work again.
|
|
jvz
One Of Your Own
Posts: 163
|
Post by jvz on May 28, 2017 13:10:45 GMT
I am watching 'Watership Down'. Animated. Certificate 'U' recorded off Channel 5 and at the start and ad breaks I am warned there "...are scenes some viewers may find upsetting".
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on May 28, 2017 13:26:01 GMT
I am watching 'Watership Down'. Animated. Certificate 'U' recorded off Channel 5 and at the start and ad breaks I am warned there "...are scenes some viewers may find upsetting". I weren't allowed to see this for years because it upset my sister and I wasn't allowed it on the tele. Maybe they had her in mind when they said it. She also didn't like King Kong for the same reason, she thought the ending was upsetting. If that was on tele I watched that though, rabbits I could live without but there was no way I'd miss King Kong. |
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on May 30, 2017 11:05:18 GMT
I am watching 'Watership Down'. Animated. Certificate 'U' recorded off Channel 5 and at the start and ad breaks I am warned there "...are scenes some viewers may find upsetting". I weren't allowed to see this for years because it upset my sister and I wasn't allowed it on the tele. Maybe they had her in mind when they said it. Tell them the truth Arch, you were too scared to see it because you were petrified about anyone seeing you bawl your eyes out at the end of the film.  |
|
|
|
Post by ltd on Jun 3, 2017 5:52:52 GMT
I am watching 'Watership Down'. Animated. Certificate 'U' recorded off Channel 5 and at the start and ad breaks I am warned there "...are scenes some viewers may find upsetting". I weren't allowed to see this for years because it upset my sister and I wasn't allowed it on the tele. Maybe they had her in mind when they said it. I think it was shown in the afternoon at Easter last year and caused some ructions when young children expecting a film about cuddly bunnies found themselves viewing a brute struggle for survival with copious amounts of blood, snot and teeth flying about. I remember seeing it at the pictures when I was 9 or 10 and being upset by so much of the book being left out, rather, than the gore quotient. These days I appreciate that it’s not always practical to do a faithful adaptation but I think the film’s ending is unduly truncated. It loses something by not including the book’s final chapter which points towards peace and reconciliation after all the violence and bloodshed. One of the BBFC’s most complained about films apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Mar 4, 2019 19:04:35 GMT
Going on from the Mary Whitehouse thread I thought it would be good to discuss the merits/pitfalls of censorship in the UK compared to foreign countries. And also the Video Nasties scandal of the 1980s.
Here are some examples of censorship:
A lot of old westerns are cut in the UK for deliberate horse falls. Yet in Germany they are released uncut. 'Conan the Barbarian' with Arnie is cut for horse falls in the UK but the rest of Europe gets the uncut version. Are we, in the UK, too sensitive?
The Lewis Collins' film 'Code Name Wild Geese' is about 15 minutes shorter in the UK than the uncut German version. The UK one is cut for rather tame violence. No logic in that at all.
The uncut 'Death Wish II' is available in the Netherlands and Australia but remains cut to ribbons in the UK and USA. OK, this is a very violent film but surely it is time to release it uncut?
I think the bold Arch is best one to talk about the Video Nasties fiasco. OK, the 1980's video rental industry did need certificates for its VHS movies but to ban and threaten to imprison the video rental outlet owners was a knee jerk reaction taken too far in my opinion.
Edit: just merged with BBFC thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Mar 4, 2019 19:19:57 GMT
I was watching 'The Defiant Ones' (1958) with Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier last week. It is certified in the UK as a U. Yet in the first 5 minutes the 'n' word is used 3 times in an insulting way. I could see how it was allowed in 'The Dambusters' but even that film carries a warning at the beginning and that isn't used in an offensive way against a human being.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Mar 5, 2019 8:14:03 GMT
Going on from the Mary Whitehouse thread I thought it would be good to discuss the merits/pitfalls of censorship in the UK compared to foreign countries. And also the Video Nasties scandal of the 1980s.
Here are some examples of censorship:
A lot of old westerns are cut in the UK for deliberate horse falls. Yet in Germany they are released uncut. 'Conan the Barbarian' with Arnie is cut for horse falls in the UK but the rest of Europe gets the uncut version. Are we, in the UK, too sensitive?
The Lewis Collins' film 'Code Name Wild Geese' is about 15 minutes shorter in the UK than the uncut German version. The UK one is cut for rather tame violence. No logic in that at all.
The uncut 'Death Wish II' is available in the Netherlands and Australia but remains cut to ribbons in the UK and USA. OK, this is a very violent film but surely it is time to release it uncut?
I think the bold Arch is best one to talk about the Video Nasties fiasco. OK, the 1980's video rental industry did need certificates for its VHS movies but to ban and threaten to imprison the video rental outlet owners was a knee jerk reaction taken too far in my opinion.
Edit: just merged with BBFC thread.
We were one of the most censored countries in the world in the 80s/90s. Blooming sad times they were for movie fans. Looking back now it all seems so insane but the fear of going to prison for copying, selling, renting or distributing certain films was a reality. It was like some sort of blind religious crusade. Sex, gore, blasphemy, animal cruelty and weaponry was all out. |
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Mar 5, 2019 8:19:19 GMT
What are your thoughts Arch on 'The Defiant Ones' getting a U rating?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Mar 5, 2019 8:37:23 GMT
What are your thoughts Arch on 'The Defiant Ones' getting a U rating? No problem. I think lots of races and gender, sexual orientation etc are treated badly in old films but it’s just about what’s acceptable at the time. Art imitating life - no agenda. What we gonna do start re-writing the history we don’t like by removing it or do we learn from it and move forward. Plus these days the people who are sat watching The Defiant Ones are not gonna be kids I bet, not on the whole, and I’m pretty sure you’ve heard the n word before and can recognise and appreciate the film for what it is So no drama. Doesn’t need to be. Why would you cut it or give it a higher age classification. I find something that is fully aware and trying to cram it’s politics down people’s throats (take for instance that latest Doctor Who series - the one I haven’t seen. ) far more offensive, as they know exactly what they are doing and who they are trying to manipulate. |
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Mar 5, 2019 9:09:24 GMT
I feel 'The Defiant Ones' should have carried a warning that "it contains language that some viewers might find offensive".
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Mar 5, 2019 9:10:35 GMT
I feel 'The Defiant Ones' should have carried a warning that "it contains language that some viewers might find offensive". Fair enough that. |
|
|
|
Post by daz on Mar 5, 2019 12:16:10 GMT
What are your thoughts Arch on 'The Defiant Ones' getting a U rating? No problem. I think lots of races and gender, sexual orientation etc are treated badly in old films but it’s just about what’s acceptable at the time. Art imitating life - no agenda. What we gonna do start re-writing the history we don’t like by removing it or do we learn from it and move forward. Plus these days the people who are sat watching The Defiant Ones are not gonna be kids I bet, not on the whole, and I’m pretty sure you’ve heard the n word before and can recognise and appreciate the film for what it is So no drama. Doesn’t need to be. Why would you cut it or give it a higher age classification. I find something that is fully aware and trying to cram it’s politics down people’s throats (take for instance that latest Doctor Who series - the one I haven’t seen. ) far more offensive, as they know exactly what they are doing and who they are trying to manipulate. Bar the last part I 100% agree. Whilst reading or watching anything with racial content is sad, those were the times we lived in, happily, most of us know that it is not acceptable to speak like that now, but you cannot undo what has been done. Most people with an average IQ know if you are watching something filmed decades ago, there is a good chance of something in it you may not like so if going to be offended best not to watch it. I suspect in the coming years a whole load of film and TV will become unacceptable to broadcast due to some of the content and our inability to accept that we cannot change what happened in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Mar 5, 2019 14:37:54 GMT
No problem. I think lots of races and gender, sexual orientation etc are treated badly in old films but it’s just about what’s acceptable at the time. Art imitating life - no agenda. What we gonna do start re-writing the history we don’t like by removing it or do we learn from it and move forward. Plus these days the people who are sat watching The Defiant Ones are not gonna be kids I bet, not on the whole, and I’m pretty sure you’ve heard the n word before and can recognise and appreciate the film for what it is So no drama. Doesn’t need to be. Why would you cut it or give it a higher age classification. I find something that is fully aware and trying to cram it’s politics down people’s throats (take for instance that latest Doctor Who series - the one I haven’t seen. ) far more offensive, as they know exactly what they are doing and who they are trying to manipulate. Bar the last part I 100% agree. Stop ruining my fun with maninasuicase  |
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Mar 20, 2019 7:35:46 GMT
I have just watched 'Big Wednesday' which is certified PG by the BBFC. It is cerified PG for "Contains mild language and violence".
So why then is the word "f**king" clearly used twice in the film? Surely that word is not considered "mild". I have never heard "f**king" used in a PG movie before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Mar 20, 2019 7:52:58 GMT
I have just watched 'Big Wednesday' which is certified PG by the BBFC. It is cerified PG for "Contains mild language and violence". So why then is the word "f**king" clearly used twice in the film? Surely that word is not considered "mild". I have never heard "f**king" used in a PG movie before. It is these days. Had it been one of my posts on here though, jno would surely have deleted it. There must be more films where that happens? What would you suggest, an 18? a 15? a 12A, a 12? Possibly a 12 is right I dunno. Children grow up so fast these days. Are you seriously trying to tell me that most children under 12 have never been exposed to that particular arrangement of vowels and consonants before? Coz you can call me cynical but I bet they have. I personally would have no problems showing someone under age 12 Big Wednesday.. Having said that I think it is probably best appreciated, considering it’s themes of coming of age and lost youth, by adults. |
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Mar 20, 2019 8:00:37 GMT
It has to be a 12 in my book.
You & I have watched thousands of films but I seriously can't recall such bad language in a PG. I am wondering if the BBFC certified an edited print and the uncut version "accidentally" got put on the DVD.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Mar 20, 2019 8:47:45 GMT
It has to be a 12 in my book. You & I have watched thousands of films but I seriously can't recall such bad language in a PG. I am wondering if the BBFC certified an edited print and the uncut version "accidentally" got put on the DVD. Maybe you should write a letter of complaint Maryinasuitcase. |
|
